Background
400 Peel Pty Ltd sought approval for alterations to the locally heritage-listed former National Australia Bank building at 400–402 Peel Street, Tamworth. The proposal included a new ground-floor accessible entry door and awning, a passenger lift, bathroom refurbishment, and associated internal works.
Tamworth Regional Council refused DA2024-0423 on 24 November 2025. The applicant commenced a Class 1 appeal and, following a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties agreed to amended plans and supporting access, structural, electrical and waterproofing material.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Starr held that the parties’ agreed outcome was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3). The Court was satisfied that the amended application addressed the relevant planning and procedural requirements, including permissibility in the E2 Commercial Centre zone, heritage considerations, essential services, and the Council’s outstanding contentions.
The Court therefore upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the amended proposal, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. It also ordered the applicant to pay the Council $1,500 in costs thrown away by the amendment, under s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The Commissioner noted that the Court was giving effect to the parties’ agreement and had not undertaken a discretionary merits assessment under s 4.15.
Key Takeaways
- A conciliated agreement may be made into orders if it is a decision the Court could properly make under s 34(3).
- Amended plans and technical evidence resolved concerns about access, structural adequacy, electrical work, waterproofing and heritage impacts.
- Amending a development application can attract costs for work rendered unnecessary by the amendment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in Class 1 conciliation matters: it must independently confirm jurisdictional requirements before formalising an agreed planning outcome.
For heritage-listed commercial buildings, the case also shows how detailed amended documentation can support accessibility upgrades while addressing heritage and building-compliance issues.